Iraqi tanks 'suicidal' at airport

[ahadams]

lendringser - you're right, but prior to the current SecDef anyone (at least anyone on the Army side of the equation) who tried to push for something lighter with more punch didn't stand a chance - I know, as I was involved in one of the much earlier rounds of that debate back in the mid-80's. Remember that the M1A2 partially evolved from a background of people who thought the XMBT-70 had a lot of potential! no kidding!

[note for non military types: the XMBT-70 was a tank prototype that was intended to be totally impervious to every tank gun and antitank weapon which existed when it was designed. Indeed they succeeded in developing a vehicle that met that spec. Only problem was it literally sank through asphalt pavement. There were some humorous pictures, later destroyed of the XMBT-70 which had been parked in a blacktop parking are usually used for heavy vehicles and left over night. When they came back the next morning it had sunk it's tracks all the way through the blacktop and compressed the dirt below the blacktop as well - it was *that* heavy. You can imagine what happened they first time they drove it into a field of wet clay - can you say 'instant pillbox'?]

 

[Leatherneck]

In the kind of fast-paced maneuver warfare envisioned for the future (at least by SecDef Rumsfeld and his "transformation thinkers"), heavying up to defeat an AT hit is out. Fast transport and battlefield agility, coupled with near-total knowledge of the tactical surroundings and on-call combined arms support, are in. An MBT so heavy that a C-5 can only transport a single one is not very useful in most places we're likely to fight the WOT. Numerous agile battle vehicles that don't break down and do fuse information from multiple sources to provide the warfighter with a complete picture of friendly and hostile force disposition are the key to future success.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Marko Kloos]

The main faults of the MBT-70, which was a joint project with Germany, was its mechanical complexity and the corresponding per-unit cost. The tank had hydropneumatic suspension, a remote-controlled 20mm AA cannon in the cupola, and a three-man crew seated in the turret. The driver was seated ina stabilized capsule on the left side of the turret, which would keep him facing forward regardless of the slew direction of the turret. In practical use, drivers complained about disorientation and nausea.

The whole tank was a case of "too much, too soon". Its problem was the introduction of expensive new technologies, and the resulting cost overrun killed it. It actually weighed less than an M1A2, and its weight was no more or less remarkable than that of other Western MBTs at the time.

 

[Bahadur]

spark:

If the Stryker could shrug off 12.7mm - 25mm rounds and had multiple weapons systems, I'd say it'd be perfect for many tasks. Unfortunately I think it falls a bit short.

In that assessment, we agree (hey, something we agree on)!

lendringser:

The XM-8 Armored Gun System would have fit that bill, but that project got cancelled sometime in the late 1990s.

I am a huge advocate of a similar system if not the XM-8 itself.

Now that the M-551 Sheridan is retired and relegated to OPFOR duty at NTC, there's nothing to fill the gap between the Bradley and the behemoth M1A2.

Who'd have thought that I'd grow old enough to hear someone miss the Sheridan!

The whole tank was a case of "too much, too soon". Its problem was the introduction of expensive new technologies, and the resulting cost overrun killed it.

That's exactly right. MBT-70 was "too revolutionary" for the time. The motto at the time was "proven (inexpensive) technology" (the only exception being the armor system).

leatherneck:

An MBT so heavy that a C-5 can only transport a single one is not very useful in most places we're likely to fight the WOT. Numerous agile battle vehicles that don't break down and do fuse information from multiple sources to provide the warfighter with a complete picture of friendly and hostile force disposition are the key to future success.

Gawd, someone make this man the Army procurement officer!

I agree wholeheartedly. But try convincing the entrenched tankers who become orgasmic at the thought of 73 Easting-type heavy armor battle.

They're a lot like their Air Force counterparts (the fighter-bomber-attack pilots) who cannot see why a huge fleet of advanced CUAVs at the expense of manned a/c is the right thing for the future.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Who'd have thought that I'd grow old enough to hear someone miss the Sheridan!

Well, it has thin armor and a slow-loading main gun, but it beats a Humvee or a set of BDUs for armor protection and firepower, and it is air-deployable. Now the Airborne has no armor left.

On a side note...ever seen the new German armored weapons carrier used by the Airborne division? It's called the "Wiesel" (Ferret), and it's armed with a 20mm chain gun or TOW launcher. It has the footprint of a VW Golf.

 

[Bahadur]

lendringser:

Well, it has thin armor and a slow-loading main gun, but it beats a Humvee or a set of BDUs for armor protection and firepower, and it is air-deployable. Now the Airborne has no armor left.

Well, just about anything beats a Humvee or clothing (!), but that does not mean that it's worth spending money on.

To state that the Sheridan has "thin armor" is an understatement. It's main gun wasn't just "slow-loading" either. Care to tell us about how the gun/missile system worked (or not worked, for that matter)?

And anyone who's been in one when the main gun is fired... well, soon develops an appreciation of the word "recoil."

On a side note...ever seen the new German armored weapons carrier used by the Airborne division? It's called the "Wiesel" (Ferret), and it's armed with a 20mm chain gun or TOW launcher. It has the footprint of a VW Golf.

That is certainly an apt name.